Hi, Russell S.,
It's a long time since the old days of the Three Russell's, isn't it? Where
have all the Russell's gone? Good to hear from you.
This has been a humbling experience. My brother was a mathematician and he
used to frown every time asked him what I thought was a simple
On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 02:45:11PM -0700, Nick Thompson wrote:
>
>
> Let’s take out all the colorful stuff and try again. Imagine a thousand
> computers, each generating a list of random numbers. Now imagine that for
> some small quantity of these computers, the numbers generated are in n a
Check out nomorobo.com. It’s free on landlines if the carrier supports it.
Small monthly charge for cell phones. We have it since we have a comcast
digital phone at home. It captures almost 100% of the robo calls. If one gets
through, we can add the number to their data base. Only one every
Having about enough of Borg Callers (Robo dialers or equivilant) googled to
see what the heck can be done?
This cam about when I found my voice mail (landline) could in about 4-5
days fill up from assorted 800 numbers calling and hanging up.
Wanting to do somthing about that I googled and came
Hi Glen,
I feel a bit like Nick says he feels when immersed in the stream of such
erudite responses to each of your seemingly related, but thread-separated
questions. As always, though, when reading the posted responses in this
forum, I learn a lot from the various and remarkable ways questions
Glen,
On closer reading of the issue you are interested in, and upon
re-consulting the sources I was thinking of (Bunge and Popper), I can
see that neither of those sources directly address the question of
whether time must be involved in order for probability theory to come
into play.
Yes, definitely. I intend to bring up deterministic stochasticity >8^D the
next time I see him. So a discussion of it in the context QM would be helpful.
On 12/13/2016 10:54 AM, Grant Holland wrote:
> This topic was well-developed in the last century. The probabilists argued
> the issues
Glenn,
This topic was well-developed in the last century. The probabilists
argued the issues thoroughly. But I find what the philosophers of
science have to say about the subject a little more pertinent to what
you are asking, since your discussion seems to be somewhat ontological.
In
If you can write down a Hamiltonian for your domain-specific problem, the
D-Wave could sample from that Boltzmann distribution.
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Owen Densmore
Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2016 11:18 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee
Oh c__p, Roger. Even I should have seen that coming.
Yes, Nick, what ever do you MEAN by a GENERATED RANDOM number?
Seems like an oxymoron, doesn’t it?
Ok. Can’t I just ask that we stipulate that the stream of numbers on the
screen of the computer is random and let it go at that?
Glen and Eric, In my role as the Fool Who Rushes In, let me just say that
according to an experience monist, past experience, present experience, and
future experience are all on the same footing. We come to know them as
different because they prove out in different ways. This should fit
Excellent! My opponent will be very happy when I make that concession. It's
interesting that, for this argument, I've adopted the Platonic perspective
despite being a constructivist myself. And it's interesting that my current
position (that the math world is extant and static) seems to
Roger, this seems to get the heart of the matter! I think we must
wonder your final sentence is not begging the question: "This was
discovered because the random numbers were used in simulations which failed
to simulate the random processes they were designed to simulate."
I'm not saying that is
You have left the model for the untainted computers unspecified, but let's
say that they are producing uniform pseudo-random numbers over some
interval, like 0 .. 1. Then your question becomes how do we distinguish
the tainted computers, which are only simulating a uniform distribution?
This
I don't have an answer per se, but I have some relevant information:
Back in the early days of statistics, one could become a pariah in the eyes
of the field if it became suspected one had surreptitiously used Bayes'
Theorem in a proof. This was because the early statisticians believed
future
15 matches
Mail list logo
